.
News Alert
SEND PHOTOS: 300-Acre Berkeley Brush Fire

POLL: Should Boy Be Responsible for Errant Little League Throw That Struck Spectator?

A Manchester boy has been sued over a pitch that struck a Whiting woman in 2010

A Manchester boy is being sued for $500,000 for an errant pitch that struck a spectator in the face two years ago at the township's Little League field, according to his father and media reports. 

Matthew Migliaccio was 11 when a practice pitch he threw left the field and struck a Whiting woman in the face. His father, Bob Migliaccio, told Patch in an email that the league originally told the family that "he had nothing legally to worry about."

That is not the case any longer, he alleges.

"Little League at every level will not help in his defense," he writes. "The policy of Little League is not to cover spectators under its insurance plan, so we are on our own."

A lawyer for the Migliaccios told the Associated Press that the lawsuit, which alleges that Elizabeth Lloyd was assaulted and battered by the pitch and has ongoing pain and anguish, is "disgusting.

"It's horrible this can actually happen and get this far," attorney Anthony Pagano told the AP. "Ultimately, hopefully, justice will prevail."

A Little League spokesperson told the AP that local leagues are required to have insurance for coaches, players and other workers, but not spectators.

The Migliaccio's homeowners' insurance would cover the count alleging negligence and carelessness, but not the two other counts, according to the AP.

Migliacco told Patch that he hopes his son's story will help spread the word that Little League does not protect players and their families from this type of incident. 

Debi Klinger June 26, 2012 at 03:48 PM
Even other personal injury attorneys are speaking out against this.... http://www.consoleandhollawell.com/law-blog/new-jersey-woman-sues-13-year-old-for-baseball-injury
Bt Doctur June 26, 2012 at 04:17 PM
Just another "Meal Ticket Mama" I also think your question should be changed, no matter how you answer your answer is wrong. Deliberately throwing the ball at the woman, then Yes.otherwise No. Cover spectators, delinety not.
Fred Dahlke June 26, 2012 at 06:24 PM
Joe R you and your girl friend ballyjduf and morons--but I suspect you both alreay know that..
Cruise Ship June 26, 2012 at 06:30 PM
First off, dumba$$ should have been watching. Second, has anyone looked into wether or not the woman and her husband are in financial trouble and looking for a way out. Third, the woman said she was ok to the kid and his father. How long did she stay at the game after being hit???? If she had multibly face factures and needed surgery, my guess would be she had to leave the game immediatly and go to the hospital for treatment. The husband is claiming he can't have relations with his wife. If so, she still have a hand or two. Next time try using it to defend yourself.
Timothy June 26, 2012 at 06:40 PM
Maybe the patch reporters should tell a more impartial story instead of just inciting readers to feel bad for an innocent kid. Truth is the woman suffered multiple fractures, had to have reconstructive surgery and still suffers headaches. Additionally there are allegations that the kid was horsing around and not to mention the fact that the woman has been trying to settle with the family's homeowner's insurance policy since the incident occurred. These facts make this law suit appear meritorius. Shame on you patch for cherry picking the facts to sensationalize this story and make the victim here appear to be evil just because she is utlizing the civil justice system appropriately. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/26/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-injured-idUS373784177520120626
Timothy June 26, 2012 at 07:33 PM
You''l call them bottom feeder attorneys until you need one. Then you'll jump on the bandwagon. This woman suffered multiple fractures and had to have reconstructive surgery. She suffered real injuries. The only real evil party here are the insurance companies who refused to settle the claim. Read this article, its a little more informative and a little less sensationalized. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/26/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-injured-idUS373784177520120626
Jennifer June 26, 2012 at 08:45 PM
From SoCal: It is an unfortunate accident that Elizabeth Lloyd was injured to the degree she was at this baseball park. As a humanitarian, I do wish her well in this regard. However, to sue this 11 year old little leaguer is disgusting and unjustified. And to hear this ballyjduff person defend this woman's actions is even more disgusting. If you are going to sue, perhaps look at the city who potentially owns the park for better fencing to protect the general public. However, this boy was at a baseball park, with his team, on the field, warming up in the best controlled environment he could be in and an accident occurred. Just like when the batter gets nailed by the pitcher, just like the pitcher gets nailed from a fastball to the chest. Accidents happen. If it goes to a jury...which I highly doubt because you have to show cause/intent for battery & assault or prove he was being reckless. None of which can be proven. And if you see the polls, blogs, etc Mr. Ballyjduff....the only additional injuries Elizabeth Lloyd will encounter is to her pocket book after she has to pay her nonsense lawyer fees.
Mark Wendell June 26, 2012 at 09:12 PM
Here is a little fact that makes you really wonder. The women was sitting on the table top as opposed to the bench. That was THE ONLY THING that made her higher than the fence. If she was PROPERLY sitting the ball would have sailed over her head. She has not said that little fact. Sad part is there was a whole field of parents who saw this. I was there that day on the field right next to this one. (#2) SHE WAS NEGLIGENT and is the PARTY AT FAULT. But...... Hey sue a 13 year old boy for making an 11 year old mistake.
Mark Wendell June 26, 2012 at 09:17 PM
@ SJ BOOK, I think that was the best point yet. PERFECT he was a student learning the sport. That's what they are there for. And you know what? people still get hit by balls in the major leagues so you would absolutely have to expect it here. Please MLL support this kid, our kid in our league. The people here have spoken and that's what we want you to do.
Mark Wendell June 26, 2012 at 09:18 PM
I think Timothy is the lawyer for this women.
EH Mom June 26, 2012 at 09:23 PM
This will forever psychologically impact this little boy. If or when this youngster becomes a father some day, well so much for answering "Sure buddy" when his kid asks; "Dad, wanna have a catch?". I challange everyone who has ever played Little League Baseball or knows someone who has, to contribute $1.00 to the family so the kid can go to court and politely state his case; "I didn't mean to hurt the lady.It was an accident and I am very sorry. May I be please be excused?"
Mark Wendell June 26, 2012 at 09:44 PM
Wrong Mr the woman's lawyer. Patch is relaying the women story as she said and that story is missing a huge hole, like she wasn't even seated right by sitting on the table top. That there has been signs on the fence for years right in front of her face. Here is your jury pool right here. And with over 800 votes it's 97% against the women. Guess your in trouble. But don't worry you will still collect a fee.
Mark Wendell June 26, 2012 at 09:48 PM
@ Bryan, I think you found the lawyer!!!!
Manny Banuelos June 26, 2012 at 10:06 PM
Correction. The article you cite contains a claim, refuted by the boy, that the throw was intentional. of course they claim the throw was intentional, otrherwise they could not bring an intentional tort claim. That anyone reasonably expects anyone to believe that this kid intentionally threw "his best fastball" into the stands is laughably ridiculous. This was an accident and instead of focusing on an 11 year olod, she should sue her insurance company. This is a reprehensible law suit.
Mark Wendell June 26, 2012 at 10:25 PM
There are a few mistakes being discussed in the thread. This warm up area is off the fields 3rd base side in an area that juts out off the field 3rd base fence. If you think of the fence as a "V" around the field with an arch shaped fence joining the two sides to create the outfield fence. The warm up area is all the way to the rear of the outfield fence going towards home plate. The main seating is about 30 feet away, being the 5 tier bleacher. It's the area in between the bleachers and the warm up pen were the women was. This spot normally contains 3 picnic tables. She was there to view a player in the game and she was not having a picnic in the spot just to have a picnic. I'm not supporting her at all, as you can she from my other post's. Just wanted to clear up the picnic thing. If you go to APP.com you can see the spot, the kid is sitting on the bench she was in the story.
Timothy June 26, 2012 at 10:27 PM
@ Mark...I am definitely not the lawyer for this woman. I just like to play devil's advocate, especially when it appears as if only part of a story is being presented. Even the APP presented more facts. Regardless, the woman is within her right to seek redress through the courts. She attempted to settle her claim amicably through the insurance company and they refused to settle the claim in good faith. The demand of 500K is the limit of the homeowners policy, according to APP. Its not like she would actually settle the case for that much anyway. Bottom line is this would not have even been news if the insurance company for the boy's family settled the claim. Not sure why the insurance company is getting a free pass here. Additionally the insurance company will most likely pay for the family's defense. And if what you say is correct, that she was sitting on a table top, she should also be apportioned with some level of fault which should reduce her overall settlement figure. However before I make a decision about a particular case I would like to know all facts, and at this point, what little is known about this case, the patch only presented part of the story in this little blurb to incite all of you sheep to react emotionally. It's just is concerning to me that everyone is getting their pitchforks and torches ready before all of the facts are known. The woman is mearly exercising her rights under the law. And Mark as far as I read it was one woman not "women".
Timothy June 26, 2012 at 10:37 PM
@Manny, how do you know there was no intentional act by this boy? I am not saying by any means he did so intentionally, but in the same respect, if you look at the recent media frenzy surrounding the youtube video of the 13 year olds harassing the 68 year old grandma bus monitor in New York, in my mind anything is possible. As far as I can tell she did attempt to negotiate with the insurance companies. First the little league's, who denied coverage and then the boy's family's homeowners insurance who refused to settle the claim, which in all probability could have been settled for much less than 500K. I'm not denying that this suit borders on ridiculous, but there are simply not enough facts presented to simply dismiss this claim as "frivolous." In any court despute there are two sides to every story. And what is ridiculous is that the insurance companies once again get a free pass for denying coverage.
Timothy June 26, 2012 at 10:38 PM
@ Mark, last time I checked, personal injury attorneys work on a contingency fee basis. So if this woman does not win a settlement, the lawyer is not entitled to a fee.
EL June 26, 2012 at 11:43 PM
Who is paying for the two police cars to sit outside her house??
Mark Wendell June 27, 2012 at 12:59 AM
@ Timothy, you're a lawyer no doubt. The APP story was more informational but that's the NEWSPAPER and this is a blog. I saw the APP story first than I looked here to comment, not to get news. If your getting your news from patch....well that's your problem. I was there the day it happened and so were allot of others. I was approx 75 feet away on field #2. I did not see it happen only the aftermath but the story of what happened was very clear as it happened only mins before. I saw the boy at the bench when we first looked. I never said that the woman did not have the right to sue but that she is heartless for doing so. It's a well known fact to watch for balls at a sporting event and if she was sitting were she was supposed to as opposed to the table top she would have been fine. Besides the fact that I was taught better than to sit on a table top, she was negligent. The coach or manager cant be sued because as volunteer's who took the safety class they are not held accountable. The league also isn't, they would not even be responsible for a broken window. So who's left, a 13 year old. This court case will never see the light of day. This very thread clearly shows, and more than any I have ever seen on Patch, a chorus highly in unison..... NO! She is OUTTAAAA HEREEEEE!!!!!
Mark Wendell June 27, 2012 at 12:59 AM
really? two police cars just sitting there all the time?
stacie bohr June 27, 2012 at 06:47 AM
Out of curiosity, if the victim tried to handle this amicably, why are the words, "assault, battery and intentional" being used in this case? Believe me, I feel for this woman but is it a matter of I couldn't get what I want (or maybe even deserve with regard to medical expenses being covered) in a nice way so now I will change what really happened into something sinister so that I do? Gee...I wonder who gave her that advice.
RonDon June 27, 2012 at 03:18 PM
Am I missing something here?? Hell, let the woman sue the kid. What is she going to get??? His bicycle? He's 11. He has no money.
CJ June 27, 2012 at 03:25 PM
His parents will have to pay a lawyer to defend against the suit. That could be a lot of $$
Timothy June 27, 2012 at 03:58 PM
@ Mark, I obviously dont rely on The Patch as a primary news source but thanks for clearing that up for me. My only issue with this poll is that before posting such a poll, ALL facts should be presented. The fact scenerio presented here was just slanted in such a way to provoke the 100 or so emotional responses that have been posted on this subject. Just to reiterate my comment from above, I do not deny that this law suit stretches the limits of logic, but in the same respect, our civil justice system is in place to resolve such disputes. Hopefully what will come out of this is perhaps modifications by the little league to provide a safer venue. Perhaps something as simple as relocation of the picnic tables from the side of the bullpen to avoid such an incident in the future. You are incorrect in your assertion that this case will "never see the light of day." The case has been filed and discovery will be had on the matter which will most likely lead to settlement. It's a shame the insurance company would not agree to settle presuit to save the family the hassle. You seem to have a lot of personal knowledge about this incident, hopefully the family's lawyer knows who you are so that you can be subpoenaed to give your supportive testimony at deposition on their behalf.
Debi Klinger June 27, 2012 at 04:31 PM
I think the general thought here is, why is this boy, his parents or his homeowners insurance ever involved from the get go....she should be submitting to her insurance company and what they dont cover you have a lawyer sue the town or little league for, or better yet chalk it up to no being aware of your surroundings. I have been hurt by accident, I chalked it up to my stupidity for not paying attention to where I was standing at the time....and would certainly never dream of suing someone. 30 years ago this would have been unheard of, and suits like these throughout the years, are why people are so afraid of being human to one another now. Its a shame.
CJ June 27, 2012 at 08:52 PM
Want to support the Migliaccios? Go to: https://www.facebook.com/groups/452139901471375/ Stand up for Matthew Migliaccio
Crystal July 08, 2012 at 08:27 PM
I am a paralegal and almost positive that when this case goes to trial, it will be no caused immediately, meaning the jury will decide the child has no liability in the incident. We all have insurance for a reason. It is very unfortunate, but to go after the child is ridiculous! I'm surprised that a Motion for Summary Judgment wasn't filed...maybe the Court wants to set some type of legal precedence with this case due to the ironic basis of same. Who knows... I know the family and they are great people, especially Matt. It's a shame they have to expend their own monies for such a ridiculous claim. Hopefully they found an attorney to handle it pro bono, as it'll be a high publicity case.
southern hick August 04, 2012 at 01:54 AM
Its true. And the survey above is flawed. The leauge shouldn't have to pay either. This lady and her wealthy husband should be outcasts in the community and shuned by all. I usually try to be nice on these sites but the lady is simply dirt or being controlled by someone who is much more greedy. They say in the law suit that the husband is being denied services of his wife. How can this even be happening? SHUN HER AND THE HUSBAND AND ANY FAMILY. No Violence No anger just outcasts in the community. If somehow she is a member of a church or a temple the leadership should pull her aside and remind her about what is right and wrong. Good luck to the kids family!! Take donor money with pride knowing everyone wants to defeat her.
Nunya Business September 28, 2012 at 02:16 PM
You know, if this waste of a human being wants to sue a little boy for not throwing as accurately as a MLB pitcher and wants damages for "pain and suffering" I think that memebers of the community where she lives should teach her and her husband what "pain and suffering" really means.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something